Inscription ban storm settled: Luke Dashjr's proposal was rejected, where does the controversy go?

On January 7th, Bitcoin Core client developer Luke Dashjr’s proposal “datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying #28408” was rejected after discussion among several Bitcoin Core developers. The proposal was presented by Luke Dashjr in September 2023 with the main goal of updating the Bitcoin Core software so that it can effectively use updated data carrying methods to limit the development of inscriptions.

After reading multiple comments on the proposal, ChainFeeds compiled the views of supporters and opponents, with proponents highlighting the current congestion facing the Bitcoin network, especially the poor mempool state and the increasing number of spammy transactions caused by inscription transactions. Opponents argue that the proposal is not an effective solution to the spam problem, as Miners are unlikely to adopt this strategy due to revenue issues. In addition, the controversy relates to the complexity of the implementation of the proposal and the code complexity that may come with it.

Supporters

Proponents argue that the proposal has nothing to do with the inscription itself, but rather with the network congestion it causes. BitcoinNode Léo Haf points out that "the current state of the mempool is very bad, the number of spam transactions has exceeded 200,000, and it seems that the number is rising. These spammy transactions have seriously hampered the practical use of Bitcoin. The security of the inscription’s exploitation is also a major argument among proponents, as the vulnerability not only leads to increased fees and transaction processing times, but can also be a potential vector for DDoS attacks. In addition, the degree of decentralization of the network will also be affected, and Nodes with fewer computing resources may struggle to meet the growing demand, resulting in a more centralized network topology. Another worrying trend is that if too much and too much data continues to be stored on the Bitcoin chain, it is likely that after a certain point, most of the Block files will only contain an endless amount of BRC-20 json data.

From the perspective of network participants, first of all, users face high fees while owning a certain amount of Bitcoin, which essentially prevents their normal access to the network. Second, for Node, these transactions increase the cost of running the Node, but do not add any value to Bitcoin itself. Finally, inscriptions are no benefit to small Miners, as scrutiny of these transactions only encourages the development of private mempools.

On the other hand, proponents also argue that the proposal only limits the amount of data carried in OP_RETURN, which has always been the “intent” of -datacarriersize. Wizkid 057, a proponent, said, "Spam has been filtering at different levels of code for over a decade, and all this PR does is apply the existing DataCarrierSize limit to another form of data transfer. 」

Opponents

Opponents argue that the proposal is not an effective solution to the problem of spam. First, Miners are unlikely to adopt this strategy, as Bitcoin Core Miners using the updated version of the PR will lose a significant fee. Ordinals founder Casey Rodarmor noted that over the past ten months, inscription transactions have generated at least $100 million in transaction fees.

Bitcoin developer Sjors Provoost stresses that “if only Ocean Pool uses the PR, then it won’t have any impact on the entire system.” If widely adopted, circumvention becomes a breeze and leads to more complex code. 」

Bitcoin Optech contributor Murch argues that despite their silliness, inscriptions cause less negative impact on the use of witness areas than other ways to embed data in the Blockchain. But there is a problem that the patch of this PR does not prevent the inscription relay from running, and the proponents of the inscription can still keep the relay running by ensuring that a small percentage of nodes on the network do not filter the inscription. And the Miner income from choosing to filter inscriptions will be reduced, and the Miner that eventually runs the patch will still deal with Block including inscriptions. Therefore, he felt that the PR change would do more harm than good.

Of course, the ability to write code to detect embedded data is also an important point of contention. According to Blockstream developer Lisa Neigut, excluding Ordinals transactions from Bitcoin by adding filters is a rather complex approach.

Eventually, Bitcoin Core developer Ava Chow closed the PR, stating that in the current situation, it would be difficult for the proposal to reach a conclusion that would satisfy everyone, so there was no need to continue the discussion. Luke Dashjr has been lashing out at the inscription since last November, but in fact, his negative perception of the inscription stems mainly from concerns about the potential risks of the BitcoinMainnet, rather than eradicating the inscription entirely. It can also be seen from the proposal that Luke Dashjr’s expectation is that most Node comply with the PR, and does not exclude Mining Pool willing to package the inscription data, which will bring some inconvenience to the user experience, but it may also give rise to some Bitcoin Layer 2 development opportunities.